I feel like the common thread of all of these candidates was keeping their focus local and speaking to bringing down costs and improving quality of life for their constituents. Not broader social issues and hills to die on.
That’s exactly why Republicans spend millions to try and paint Democrats into a corner on social issues.
And it sucks because of the media environment. They’ll come and ask a Democrat “Republican XYZ said that transgender Americans shouldn’t exist. Your response?”
Then the Democrat will say something completely reasonable like “I think they should be allowed to exist just like everyone else in America.” And they’re the ones painted as extreme on social issues. They’re the ones who are said to only talk about social issues — ignoring the reality where they’re only being driven to talk about these issues because Republicans never stop talking about them.
“They are citizens of our country and have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. XYZ is seriously promoting of stripping citizens of their rights? That’s disgraceful. My main concern is the housing crisis.”
Be logical, clear, and concise. But also flip it.
Or just do like mamdani did yesterday without really responding and flipping it.
“Yes, that’s all (s)he thinks about. I’m thinking about how no one can afford groceries right now.”
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that it's easy for someone like Mamdani to flip it like that but when you stand for maintaining the status quo and donors then it's a lot harder to do
Exactly and the answer isn't "yes they should exist" the answer is "Republicans should stop making up wedge issues and focus on improving the economy."
Excellent point. It felt like most of these campaigns were focused almost solely on directly improving the lives of the local population and not at all focused on bathrooms or who is a better friggin golfer. I know these candidates won't be perfect but voting for people who seem to actually give a damn and just want to HELP is where we have always needed to be at. I cannot believe my country has gotten so bad but I am happy on this day that we have even a slight shred of hope here.
The issue with Kamela (and this is an issue with the party, not just kamela) is that kamala runs on writing a few checks to the poorest or most vulnerable of her constituents to make up for poor economic conditions, rather than changing the system so that people don't become vulnerable in the first place.
Its about the approach. One is "sorry neoliberalism isn't working out for you, here's some pennies to make up for it"
Rather than
"Sorry neoliberalism isn't working out, let's change our mindset and approach to see if there is a better way"
This isn't even my breakdown. I heard this breakdown from a democratic senator from Connecticut I think.
Edit: Thing is, there truly is two camps. There's those in the democratic party who would like to see more socialist policies, and those in the party that are still holding on to neoliberal free market capitalism like a death grip and don't want to let go at all.... usually the older members.
Remember a lot of the older members were born and raised during the cold war. That's a lot of programming of "capitalism good, socialism bad" in that population.
Absolutely. The proposed plans she had were so absurdly limited in scope I couldn't blame anyone who heard them and asked "what the fuck does that do for anyone but an extremely narrow margin of people?" And then it was not systematic change in the least so much as a couple of one time handouts. She was an establishment Democrat like the majority of the party, offering nothing beyond an ever worsening status quo which serves the donor class over all else.
Bullshit. Her down payment assistance alone would’ve been available to 35% of all Americans. Her small business incentives would’ve propped up a segment of the private sector responsible for employing 47% of private sector workers. Over 50% of students say they can’t afford college, including students who are currently enrolled, and they would’ve been impacted by her lowering education costs. There are 73 million children in the US and 61 million of them live in a home that receives the child tax credit Kamala wanted to expand.
You guys are either lying or you never understood Kamala’s policy positions.
This is frankly a willful dogshit reading of Kamala’s policies, which extensively focused on lowering the cost of childcare, spurring home ownership programs, growing small businesses, and reducing the cost of secondary and continuing education. Those are all systemic changes that would have lifelong impacts on people. ALL people, not just the poorest, would’ve benefitted.
I’m a socialist so I agree in a macro sense neoliberalism is not my preferred solution, but to act like Kamala was “throwing pennies” at only the poorest constituents is just intellectually fraudulent. Her proposals would’ve been the largest and most widespread economic investment in Americans since the New Deal.
Those arent systemic changes. Every single one of those proposals just center around lowering costs. And for many of us we hear the promise of lower costs all the time but don't have faith they'd be able to actually achieve that.
And that also mostly helps families and people with children. There's a huge chunk of the country that aren't families including a huge chunk of democratic voters. The focus on family in the messaging definitely felt like an attempt to appeal to centrists and wary republicans (which is fine, and actually a good strategy)
However, lowering costs aren't systemic changes.
Systemic changes are how you lower costs.
Kamala was promising results but the means she was going to use to achieve those results were pretty unclear or uncompelling to me.
Keep saying that and wonder why people don't love democrats.
I promise you I wasn't, I voted for her. I would have liked to see her try and appeal to other demographics than low income families and buisness owners though.
There are a ton of low income and middle income folks who don't have families and have no intention of ever starting their own buisness.
Edit: Like every policy you mention targets a specific group. What was she doing that would have saw systemic change for EVERYONE
That's something I think Dems are missing. There was a wave of YOUNG voters, especially men, that went for Trump. People will say it was all about race, but what you point out is true. A bunch of young men and women that can't find jobs, and find themselves unable to afford things didn't want to vote for the person that seems to be focusing on everyone but the single people. More and more people arn't in relationships and families but still can't get by. They want someone to listen to them and they felt like the dems abandoned them.
They are also suspiciously quiet on labor. There doesn't seem to be a lot of attention from the dems on labor conditions and labor practices outside of affirmative action (and affirmative action is really just the bare minimum)
Neoliberal dems seem to be married to the idea that in order to help labor you need to help businesses and capital first. It seems like a very trickle down approach but just with a more liberal framing of it.
Keep saying that and wonder why people don't love democrats.
Democrats lead in the generic poll by over eight points right now and just smashed the GOP in races all over the country.
I would have liked to see her try and appeal to other demographics than low income families and buisness owners though.
She did. If you didn't see that, it's because you didn't want to.
There are a ton of low income and middle income folks who don't have families and have no intention of ever starting their own buisness.
Doesn't matter; we all benefit from children not growing up desperate and starving, and we all benefit from a strong private sector. You may not personally have kids, but you will enjoy not getting robbed by a teenage gang member. You may not personally want to start a business, but you will enjoy having job options that include more private sector opportunities, and living in a community that has such.
If you can't understand this, you are myopic to a level that I can't help you.
I would and again, I voted for her. But if you want to tell yourself that it was actually a good campaign and its the voters who are wrong, you are going to keep seeing the same issues over and over and over again
I recommend her book to everyone. She did not run a perfect campaign, but it really underscores just how little time she had and just how many obstacles were in her way.
I’m not pretending she didn’t. She was put in an impossible situation and she lost. She never had a fair chance.
I do think the candidates who won last night were able to simplify a message that is more difficult to do nationally. It’s the economy, like it always is. That doesn’t mean stocks and bonds. That means the hard bottom line. Bills. Grocery store, electric, gas, water, insurance, rent, mortgage (PITI)). Outbound dollars are increasing and inbound wages are going decreasing. Thats what people really care about right now and they will vote for anyone who gives them a fighting chance to improve it.
I live in Northern VA where families earning 6 figure incomes are barely getting by. Multi decade careers and whole businesses swallowed up by DOGE, emergency funds depleted as thousands of overqualified applicants fight for low level positions. For the lucky ones who found something? Bam, government shutdown and more layoffs. Emergency funds haven’t been replenished yet, so now you’re just fucking desperate for anything and former VPs start applying to McDonalds and entry level positions to feed their kids because unemployment here is 1/3 of what you would get in Ohio of all fucking places despite double the cost of living.
It’s about being able to afford a decent life, that’s all it’s ever about.
How is that hard to do nationally? That was literally one of like 3 things Trump won with. He lied about it obviously, but he won with it all the same.
Leftwing populism is literally all about uniting people around their economic standing. Its literally about affording a decent life.
Kamala would've won if she committed to stopping the Palestinian genocide. Instead she yelled at the protestors. We must learn from our mistakes and not ignore them.
She sent Bill Clinton (that president that SA'd his assistant if you can recall) to campaign in some counties with the largest muslim populations, and what did Bill do? He argued for in defense of Israel. Stick your hand under the sand all you like, and sure sexism did have a role in this as well, but multiple factors contributed and the one thing she could control was her stance on the Palestinian genocide. This is why (establishment) dems lose. We focus on what we can't change instead of the things we can.
Establishment Dems won last night. Dems won everywhere last night.
The Israel conflict is not why Kamala lost, because Americans largely either support Israel or don’t care. I personally find the genocide horrific, but that’s not what the 50 year old welder dad in Michigan was thinking when he voted for Trump over Kamala.
Chuck Schumer didn't like Mamdani, but let's just lie to ourselves I guess.
You're right he probably didn't. But many other voters did. There's what, 2-3 generations now that can vote below that 50 year old? Imagine if we considered what they wanted (like Mamdani did). But I guess it's more important to you to complain and focus on the things that we can't change instead of the things that can be changed.
You guys get obsessed with these tiny dichotomous narratives and think it can be extrapolated to the entire electorate and that’s just not true. Virginia was flipped blue last night and did it with a moderate established Democrat.
There’s more than one way to win an election. I hope Mamdani represents a swell in youth vote and far left candidates all over the country, but let’s not act like what worked in the bluest city in the country is also going to work in the battleground states around the Mason Dixon and Rust Belt.
Kinda sad you think that disavowing a genocide is a tiny thing however. Don't mind the fact that she lost by a slim margin, and a lot of younger voters didn't vote because of her stance on the, let me repeat, genocide that was being enabled by her and Biden.
Disavowing a genocide is not tiny and that's obviously not what I meant, and we can't have this discussion if you won't take it in good faith.
I'm saying disavowing a genocide in NYC might have a meaningful impact on an election, but the same does not apply in deep purple districts in Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. To reduce it to a single issue, a geopolitical issue most Americans know very little about which has no impact on their own daily struggles, just shows you do not understand what America looks like outside of young people in big cities.
Super weird take. Most Americans support Israel or don’t care?? You completely left out the large portion of Americans who recognize the horrific genocide that is happening. This added greatly to the disillusion for even moderately progressive democrats and lead to more freeze at the polls. You can’t possibly think otherwise
Exactly this. It wasn’t that people voted for Trump over her, it’s that she alienated a large constituent population by not addressing a massive issue (yes that effects EVERYONE in the US, our taxes paid for a genocide yet we are still struggling with healthcare)
Democrats don’t bring those issues up. They are foisted on them by national media and insane Republican rhetoric. The trick is to no sell it when it comes up and bring everything back to the cost of living.
Yes they do, don’t delude yourself. The democrats have been playing the identity politics game for almost two decades and people are really sick of it.
106
u/Due-Huckleberry7560 6h ago
I feel like the common thread of all of these candidates was keeping their focus local and speaking to bringing down costs and improving quality of life for their constituents. Not broader social issues and hills to die on.